AbstractOrthodox quantum mechanics is technically built around an element that von Neumann called Process 1. In its basic form it consists of an action that reduces the prior state of a physical system to a sum of two parts, which can be regarded as the parts corresponding to the answers ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to a specific question that this action poses, or ‘puts to nature’. Nature returns one answer or the other, in accordance with statistical weightings specified by the theory. Thus the standard statistical element in quantum theory enters only after the Process-1 choice is made, while the known deterministic element in quantum theory governs the dynamics that prevails between the reduction events, but not the process that determines which of the continuum of allowed Process-1 probing actions will actually occur. The rules governing that selection process are not fixed by the theory in its present form. This freedom can be used to resolve in a natural way an apparent problem of the orthodox theory, its biocentrism. That resolution produces a rationally coherent realization of the theory that preserves the basic orthodox structure but allows naturally for the possibility that human personality may survive bodily death.

AbstractOrthodox quantum mechanics is technically built around an element that von Neumann called Process 1. In its basic form it consists of an action that reduces the prior state of a physical system to a sum of two parts, which can be regarded as the parts corresponding to the answers ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to a specific question that this action poses, or ‘puts to nature’. Nature returns one answer or the other, in accordance with statistical weightings specified by the theory. Thus the standard statistical element in quantum theory enters only after the Process-1 choice is made, while the known deterministic element in quantum theory governs the dynamics that prevails between the reduction events, but not the process that determines which of the continuum of allowed Process-1 probing actions will actually occur. The rules governing that selection process are not fixed by the theory in its present form. This freedom can be used to resolve in a natural way an apparent problem of the orthodox theory, its biocentrism. That resolution produces a rationally coherent realization of the theory that preserves the basic orthodox structure but allows naturally for the possibility that human personality may survive bodily death.

Now that I've had a chance to look at the essay, I see what you mean. His line of thinking does seem quite close to the dharma in many respects. This bit in particular caught my attention:

William James drew attention to “the fantastic laws of clinging” that allow a stream of conscious thoughts, with its ever-changing intermingling of related ideas, to hang together like a persisting entity. If there were purely mentalistic laws of clinging, then in our normal streams of consciousness these mentalistic laws could be acting in coordination with the physical laws of clinging, to produce the coordinated streams of consciousness that we experience. But how seriously would the theory be upset if sequences of mental events could hang together in persisting societies without the assistance of their physical mates?

...If we can push back to a time when only [the physical or mental] aspect prevailed, then it is certainly much easier to imagine a basically mental world creating for itself a physical substructure to attend to the minor details, than to imagine a purely physical world creating a mental superstructure. (pg 13-14)

Have you come across his book "Mindful Universe"? Stapp's a real interesting fella to watch. He has impeccable credentials as a physicist and no apparent philosophical or religious axe to grind, which makes it all the more noteworthy that he's raising these questions.

Huseng wrote:Glad to hear physics is catching up with Buddhist thought.

mahayana buddhism denies that things are the sum of their parts. plus this abstraction is assuming that the physical sum accounts for mind

To be more specific Mahayana in general refutes that a thing is the sum of parts and possesses a unique self-identity or self-existence (svabhava). The idea is that a dharma does not really possess svabhava, thus it is empty of svabhava, but our mistaken perception of the entity produces the appearance of svabhava.

There is no problem with saying that conventionally conditions come together and form a relatively-existent and dependently originated thing or person.

My point above is simply that some people in physics are starting to come to the conclusion that rebirth makes more sense than post-mortem oblivion.

Huseng wrote:There is no problem with saying that conventionally conditions come together and form a relatively-existent and dependently originated thing or person.

does that kind of svabhava exist conventionally? it doesnt exist at all. therefore we cant say even conventionally that things are the sum of their parts. right?

and more importantly, i think, there is 0 mention of mind. all there ever seems to be are explanation of how a hydraulics systems (ie. the body) endures in various ways after death. then they just throw the word 'self' or 'personality' in there, as though they had the slightest scientific basis for doing so. they havent even found the neural correlate for mere awareness, nor have they established that the neural correlate equates to mere awareness itself [which is the meaning of materialistic theory for the past 400 years in the west, and over 2000 years in india etc].